Talk:Walter Sedlmayr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sourcing for the inclusion of the names of the murderers[edit]

Currently, the names of the convicted murderers (Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber) are available through these reliable online sources:

Less reliable sources include: [1], [2], [3].

Through these sources, the identity of the men who have been convicted of murdering Sedlmayer is clearly verifiable, even without resorting to the uncensored print versions of the contemporary newspaper articles. Ringelblume (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is still verifiable. However, that does not in itself satisfy WP:BLP standards for publishing their names. The question to answer is : what impact does the German court decision (based on an assessment of the tradeoff between public interest and individual privacy rights) have on Wikipedia's choice to publish or not publish their names? +sj + 08:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The German court decision should have no effect whatsoever, and I see no reason why WP:BLP is not satisfied. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lengthy, lengthy discussion about this here, though I see you've already commented there. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

two half-brothers and former business associates of Sedlmayr[edit]

"two half-brothers and former business associates of Sedlmayr" is ambiguous. Were they half brothers of Sedlmayr or each other. I'm guessing each other. But I should not have to guess. It should be made more clear. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do the sources say? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had to run them through google translator, but this reference says it's the offenders who were half-brothers. I've clarified the wording. justinfr (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the way the original wording read to me, but it's good that you confirmed it and clarified it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the news: "Convicted Murderer to Wikipedia: Shhh!"[edit]

[4]

This is not a reason to scream "BLP!" or give an excuse for redacting anything by claiming any possible fears from the legal department: I've seen Mike Godwin's response to the cease-and-desist letter, and it can best be described as "mocking". --Calton | Talk 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to mention the last names of the murders here, especially when the cited references do not contain those names? e.g. "Manfred L.s und seines Halbbruders Wolfgang W." [5] 207.34.229.126 (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources outside Germany contain the full names. See for example this one. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the view of the authorities, the individuals have committed a crime, have been punished for it, have served their allotted sentence, and are now free to carry on with their lives. It is not for Wikipedia to decide otherwise. Other people are reporting it. Other people are committing murder. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've gone through this before (although not in response to that article). It's not for Wikipedia to decide that the identity of the murderer is irrelevant.
As for the difficulty in sourcing, some German articles used to contain the full names. If the old articles are available on archive.org, that might be an interesting fact to include at that point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source was added to the article after my comment. Ok now, but at the time, the sources did not contain full names. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case there's any confusion over this, what the convicted murderers's lawyers are saying is that because the convicted carried out his sentence for the crime and served his "debt to society" so to speak, his name should be redacted from any articles mentioning his connection with the murder as to allow him to better integrate into society. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty irrelevant. He's paid his "debt to society", but the victim is still dead. Can't say I feel for the murderers at all. - Denimadept (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to redact the murder's surname is because it distracts from the victim. The families of murdered people often hear the name of the murderer more than that of the innocent person. Family of murdered people are asking people to #SayTheirNames. This decreases the attention put on the murderer. In essence, murderers are getting attention for being bad and innocent people get forgotten. This leads to murderers being glorified by some sick minded people. TheTypingKat (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a question of an individual's right to privacy, whether that person is a murderer or has found a cure for cancer is irrelevant. The Internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular, is banging down the door to freedom of speech, in the process dismantling the privacy we used to have. Whether that is good or bad is in turn irrelevant, what matters is the law and the consistency of Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.64.204 (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK - a reminder[edit]

This article is a biography of Walter Sedlmayr. I fail to see how the lawsuit is relevant here. By all means argue out whether to include the name or not, but don't use the article as a venue for furthering either side in this debate. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit is relevant to the article on the murderer, which is here. It would be relevant even if, for some reason, the name were excised. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, see Can you sue Wikipedia? Wikipedia's content is hosted under State of Florida law, and is therefore not subject to German law. Wolfgang Werlé has had dud legal advice if he was told otherwise. Whatever the rights and wrongs under German law, the English language Wikipedia cannot be gagged on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, given the issue's recent profile, how is this article not tagged "current events" and given the recognition it deserves? The very fact that it is newsworthy gives the site status. There is no debate here.Tarkaan (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some circles perhaps, but in reality it is a very small news story. See google results for instance. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the article has tried to avoid WP:UNDUE, but the matter is not going to be swept under the carpet on the basis of threats from Herr Werlé's lawyers.[6] Nothing in US law would prevent the fair reporting of facts in this case, although there is no need to dwell on things in the past since Herr Werlé is now out on parole.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not "report on facts". See WP:NOTNEWS. It's a news story, and this sort of discussion only ends up giving it legs it otherwise wouldn't have. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable or not[edit]

  • Given the importance of free speech, facts of history should not be censored. However, Wikipedia should not be used as an instrument for shaming people. The sole determinant of whether a person is mentioned in Wikipedia should be a person's historical importance (including references to the recent past). The victim (of a crime) being important does not necessarily make the offender important. For example, if a typical gang of juvenile hoodlums mugged an important person, their names might not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Generally, if the person gets a lot of media attention, that is enough to make them notable.

So, are these German murderers notable?Anthony717 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a question of whether we should have separate articles about them. Not whether they should be mentioned. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be difficult for people in other countries to judge the significance of a criminal case. This article from the Berliner Morgenpost describes the Sedlmayr case as "the most spectacular in Munich's postwar history (Der Fall Sedlmayr zählt zu den spektakulärsten Verbrechen der Münchener Nachkriegsgeschichte). The case is clearly well known in Germany, although few people in the English speaking world had heard about it before this row broke out. It is not the purpose of the English language Wikipedia to "name and shame" Wolfgang Werlé, but it is unrealistic to ask for a ban on facts that were known and reported widely in the media.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current German language version of the article [7] does not name the killers. It is not clear whether this is the result of a court ruling, or whether the names have been omitted for the sake of a quiet life.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Different wikimedia wikis have different policies. Even commons and en policies differ in many ways.--98.248.113.11 (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The case is now definitely notable with this coverage in the New York Times, which links directly to this article. It also says that Herr Werlé has a case pending against Wikimedia in a German court. The lawyer for the two killers (the aptly named Alexander H. Stopp) asked the New York Times not to mention their names in the article. However, the NYT both named them and published their photographs.

Incidentally, the German language Wikipedia has no copyrighted material at all, because German law does not have the same concept of fair use. This is an example of how Wikipedia can be different in other languages.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see photos in the version you linked to. In any event, that seems to pretty strongly argue for inclusion when the newspaper of record in the US includes there names. The NYT also has a very high standard of ethics so if they think this is ok... JoshuaZ (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of photos in the current version of the article [8] is interesting. They were definitely there this morning, but may have been removed for a range of reasons. Personally, I don't think that the photos enhance an understanding of the story, as Wikipedia was happy all along with one line mentioning the verdict of a court case in 1993. However, for those who want to see the photos as they originally appeared, they are here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They dont need to be notable, this is not an article about them. It's an article about walter sedlmayr who I dont have any idea on whether's he's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.244.84 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To save some discussion time...[edit]

...for any newcomers, here's a link to a discussion last year on whether to remove the names of the murderers. --Calton | Talk 15:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required was an issue in August 2008, and at that time it was decided that the English language Wikipedia was under no obligation to remove the names of the two murderers, as the information had been in the public domain for fifteen years. Things have moved on since then, and in the best traditions of the Streisand effect, overzealous legal threats have given the case far more prominence than it would otherwise have had (eg coverage in the New York Times. [9])--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To "save some discussion time" indeed. I've read the 2008 discussion and it enrages me. Who is the German-speaking world to sue the English-speaking world for the latter's far different approach--historically and culturally--to the recording of a harrowing crime? The two half-brothers were guilty; they viciously murdered Sedlmayr. Some Germans may wish to rewrite history, but in Britain, America, Canada and Australia we don't. The two murderers' names are relevant.Mason.Jones (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the other side of the story, the talk page of the German language version of Walter Sedlmayr is here. In German obviously, but the Google Translate version in English is here. The 2008 request to the English language Wikipedia to remove the names did not go down very well among the regular editors, but the German language version of Walter Sedlmayr here does not currently give the names of the murderers. The Wikimedia Foundation has no server computers in Germany, so even if the German courts ruled against it, there would be little to prevent the inclusion of the names in the German language version.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to be enraged, but it shouldn't matter how low you think the persons are, and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as tool for crime policy (to which it may be counterproductive, there are too many Herostratoses in the world). In my view committing a crime against someone notable does not in itself make the criminal notable, though in some cases it might (I have no opinion on this particular case, the court order caught my attention, not the murder. I suspect that is the case for the most of us). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.64.204 (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link to FOCUS article[edit]

In the section of the article about his murder, there's a link to FOCUS magazine. (Right now, it's reference number 2.) Rather, the link is to an image that was uploaded to Wikimedia; it was speedily deleted because it was unfree. You can find the original here: http://home.arcor.de/eemcpt68/Focus%2003-2005.pdf I would insert it, but the article is locked. Cheers, 66.25.169.151 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. To save time on scrolling, the reference to the case is on page 22. This comes from the German media in March 2005, and gives the names of both the murderers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! One small change, though: it's on page 30 of the magazine (as the original reference said). That may be page 22 of the file, but it's page 30 of the magazine. 66.25.169.151 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for doing it this way was that PDF documents allow you to go straight to one of the pages in the document via the toolbar at the top or the popout page bar on the left. Hopefully this is the easiest way to find the Sedlmayr reference.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy regarding the verdicts?[edit]

If google translate hasn't failed me, the German version of this article apparently suggests that there is some controversy regarding the guilty verdicts for Werle and his co-conspirator. Apparently there have been attempts at retrial (or appeal). If this is accurate, it should probably be mentioned. Blowfish (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the Berliner Morgenpost says that the defendants have protested their innocence and cited inconsistencies in the evidence. This is more suitable for inclusion in Wolfgang Werlé.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot[edit]

The first citation in the article [10] seems to have WP:LINKROT. Can anyone help, or it may have to be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link has been replaced with an active one [11] that gives some more details about the case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Werle lawsuit in this article...[edit]

Shouldn't be overly extensive, I don't think. There's plenty of room for that on the Wolfgang Werle page, and I think that it should be kept there, on the grounds that the lawsuit has more to do with Walter Sedlmayer the wikipedia page, than Walter Sedlmayer, the deceased German actor. Blowfish (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, the lawsuit has exactly zero to do with Sedlmeyar the actor. I question whether even the one sentence remaining here (after my edit) really has any place in this article. Definitely over on Werlé's article, or possibly in a spinoff article on the lawsuit, but not here. LotLE×talk 07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this looks quite good now, following the edit. Blowfish (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To stay on WP:TOPIC, all of the details of the lawsuit are now covered in Wolfgang Werlé.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motive[edit]

What was the motivation of the murderers to murder this guy?Undead Herle King (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motive remains something of a mystery. There were suggestions at the trial of Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber that the root cause was a business dispute, but since they protest their innocence it is hard to say exactly what the motive was.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walter_Sedlmayr&oldid=1210294184"